Here's a little discouragement from theonering.net:

A tough 'Hobbit' to start
Xoanon @ 8:39 pm EST
MGM's recent announcement that it intended to release "The Hobbit" and, hopefully, get Peter Jackson to direct it, caused major buzz in Hollywood.

It also caused a frenzy among Jackson fans, who have been lobbying via petition on the fansite TheOneRing.net for Jackson to tackle the "Lord of the Rings" prequel ASAP. The petition tallied nearly 50,000 signatures and was submitted to MGM and New Line, which share film rights to "The Hobbit." (MGM owns distribution rights; New Line owns the rights to actually make the movie.)

Reflecting just how important Jackson's online fan base was to the success of the "LOTR" pics, MGM chief operating officer Rick Sands responded to the petition, saying: "MGM would be thrilled to collaborate with the Academy-Award winning director on this MGM/New Line Cinema production. And, I'm sure to the delight of the 50,000 filmgoers who have petitioned us in recent weeks, demanding we bring this film to fruition, we have had a few initial conversations about the project with Mr. Jackson's representatives."

Ken Kamins, who manages Jackson, would not comment on the matter. But people close to Jackson say it's not likely the director will turn to "The Hobbit" anytime soon -- at least not until the lawsuit between Jackson and New Line over "Lord of the Rings" revenues is settled.

Jackson's suit claims he's still owed money from the trilogy, including revenues from distribution deals abroad. Sorting through the various overseas deals and payments is a complex matter, however, and no damage amount is specified.

But considering the "LOTR" trilogy grossed close to $3 billion worldwide in ticket sales alone, shouldn't New Line be working a little harder to make peace with Jackson? After all, Time Warner stockholders would no doubt be tickled to hear that an "LOTR"-type film was in the works, with the potential for LOTR-type grosses.

In the meantime, Jackson is busy with a number of other projects. He's working on the script for "The Lovely Bones," based on the novel by Alice Sebold, which will be his next directing gig. He's also exec producing Universal's "Halo" and producing U's "Dambusters," and just acquired rights to a trilogy of fantasy novels by Naomi Novik about a Napoleon-era ship's captain and a heroic dragon named Temeraire. The multi-hyphenate is also launching a videogame studio with Microsoft.

Frodo fans will just have to sit tight.
[/indent][/INDENT]To that I would add that Frodo fans will have to sit especially tight, since Frodo should not be in The Hobbit at all, unless they tack on some epilog about Frodo coming to live with him. And to do that would mess with the timeline even worse than making Frodo (apparently) 18 years old like PJ did in LOTR.

Ugh... typical, and this despite 'reports' that Jackson's enthusiasm and desire to work on The Hobbit were completely outside and aside from his lawsuit with New Line. What a load of bullpoop, I say. Money talks, and it sounds very true to me that Jackson won't budge until NL dances to his tune. The article did make a very good point though: with the amount of money that LOTR grossed, this can only be seen as highly stupid and stingy on their part not to give the man his due, while passing up the potential for another uber-grossing movie opportunity like The Hobbit.

Hey New Line, your proctologist just called... he found your head.

Frodo being in The Hobbit would be wrong for many reasons, but I shudder to think that might just be on the list of Jackson's crazy cameo ideas.

The only way Frodo would make much sense would be using him as a framing story and having the Hobbit story be a flashback. He could be reading it in Bilbo's book, or Bilbo could tell him the story on the ship to Valinor. Not that I'm saying I think those are good ideas or necessary, but they'd be preferable to trying to introduce him some other way.

As to the other, studios can be appalling crappy to their star performers. Apologies in advance to any of our members who may be attorneys or accountants, but it's precisely the kind of thing you get when you have attorneys and accountants running your company. My favorite example is that James Cameron and Sigourney Weaver had to sue 20th Century Fox for their share of the profits from Aliens. Fox tried to tell them they weren't entitled to a share of the profits, as there were no profits because the movie lost money. Aliens lost money? Please! It was one of the biggest hits of 1986. But to some gimlet-eyed accountant, it seemed like a great scheme. Never mind that you're p***ing off the two biggest players in what was then a red-hot franchise.

Ultimately, the blame lies with the CEO. This kind of crap couldn't go forward if they didn't sign off on it.

MGM chief operating officer Rick Sands talked about "Terminator 4" and "The Hobbit" while at ShowEast this week reports Slashfilm.

Sands says that T4 will have a new title and not a number, going with the recent poll which confirms moviegoers prefer new titles over numbers. As for someone else taking over for Arnie - "It's like the 'Batman' or 'Superman' franchise in that it lends itself to having different actors in the roles".

Sands also confirmed that talks are underway with New Line Cinema to obtain the rights to produce TWO prequel films to "The Lord of the Rings", based on J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit".


Somehow, and for reasons already discussed, this talk about turning the Hobbit into two movies instead of one still disturbs me. I don't really feel there is enough meat on the bones of that book to give sufficient material for two feature-length films. A single three-hour movie would suffice, unless if by two, they will make them two-hours each only, and thus include every scene possible from the book. Given PJ's comments, if he gets to make this movie(s), he won't have any trouble filling up that time with his ideas.

I can certainly envision the addition of an extended epilogue that would fill in a bit of the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR as a way of bridging the two works together, but don't hold your breath on any Silmarillion stuff. First, it would be sorely out of place in this movie. Second, the rights to cinematic distribution of anything not pertaining to LOTR and The Hobbit specifically are far more complicated and held with an iron-grip than you care to know. If you think disentangling the Hobbit for production is proving difficult, it's like a two-year old's birthday party compared to the nightmare of securing the rights for the Silmarillion. Don't count on it.

Valkrist wrote:MGM chief operating officer Rick Sands talked about "Terminator 4" and "The Hobbit" while at ShowEast this week reports Slashfilm.

Sands says that T4 will have a new title and not a number, going with the recent poll which confirms moviegoers prefer new titles over numbers. As for someone else taking over for Arnie - "It's like the 'Batman' or 'Superman' franchise in that it lends itself to having different actors in the roles".

Sands also confirmed that talks are underway with New Line Cinema to obtain the rights to produce TWO prequel films to "The Lord of the Rings", based on J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit".


Somehow, and for reasons already discussed, this talk about turning the Hobbit into two movies instead of one still disturbs me. I don't really feel there is enough meat on the bones of that book to give sufficient material for two feature-length films. A single three-hour movie would suffice, unless if by two, they will make them two-hours each only, and thus include every scene possible from the book. Given PJ's comments, if he gets to make this movie(s), he won't have any trouble filling up that time with his ideas.

I think they're wrong about Terminator being a franchise where you can substitute stars. This role is so closely identified with Ahnold that I think doing one without him would guarantee it to be a flop. And I mean, who else would they get? Probably an unknown to save money. That would reek of cashing in.

I'm still cautiously optimistic about The Hobbit, even in a 2-film incarnation. In spite of the artificiality of it from a book standpoint, if it lets them include more of the adventure and raise the level of it closer to LOTR, that's good. Beyond that, the bigger hurdles are actually getting New Line and MGM agreeing on it, and getting PJ on board. After that, I'll worry about the script.

Posted today on ComingSoon.net

As for The Hobbit, Sloan confirmed that MGM was in advanced talks with Peter Jackson to make two movies based on JRR Tolkien's "prequel" to "The Lord of the Rings."

The first would be a direct adaptation of The Hobbit, and the second would be drawn from "footnotes and source material connecting 'The Hobbit' with 'Lord of the Rings,'" he e xp lained.

An MGM spokesman emphasized that negotiations with Jackson are still in progress, and that production isn't likely until 2008 or even 2009.

I merged Anduril's thread into the existing Hobbit thread.

One of the sources (Variety, I believe) quoted a studio source as saying that nothing would get too far as long as PJ's lawsuit against New Line remains unsettled. Of course, we already knew that, but it's probably useful that they get that information out there.

I can't believe the description of how the two movies would be structured can be correct. I think it more likely that it meant to say that the "footnotes and source material" information would be used to supplement the story (with the result that the thing would be long enough for two parts). I think that would be a workable approach. I know we've debated this a bit already, but I feel that the additional storyline as contained in the LOTR appendices and Unfinished Tales would really make the Hobbit a much better movie. (Admittedly, PJ once alluded to the incorporation of Unfinished Tales material into his depiction of Isildur's loss or the Ring, and that certainly didn't play out well, unless you think Tolkien depicted Isildur as a coward.) However, that material is insufficient for a standalone movie! So that's why I think the report probably misquoted someone. Time will tell!

And speaking of time, if Ian McKellen lets his hair and beard start growing now, they'll be about Gandalf the Grey length by the time shooting starts! And Elijah Wood will be old enough to play Bilbo!

Ugh! This is odd news indeed and I am in complete agreement with Flame on this one. If true, this rumour could signify that PJ is just dying for an excuse to go off on some weird creative tangents with this project, which I do not see as a good thing.

Again though, all this talk about 'talks' with PJ is old news. As Olorin pointed out, the lawsuit will forever stall anything to do with PJ, and until the man confirms this himself, MGM can do their little song and dance all they want.

As for material for a second movie, I hope if this does pan out, that they take Olorin's approach. I still think they should simply worry about making a Hobbit movie and forget about the rest, but if it must happen, all that it should include is this:

**SPOILERS**

- a lengthy prologue of sorts that deals with the chapter in Unfinished Tales called 'The Quest of Erebor.' For those not familiar with this work, it details Gandalf's planning and reasoning for dealing with Smaug, and reveals the extent of his dealings with Thorin, and how he plants the idea in the dwarf's mind about retaking the Lonely Mountain from the dragon.

- if he wanted to go a little further back and e xp and on this, he can show Gandalf's journey into Dol Guldur, and his discovery of the imprisoned Thrain. This encounter e xp lains how Gandalf came into the posession of Thrain's key, Thror's map, and the discovery that Thror's Ring (one of the Seven,) was missing. This sojourn into the dark fortress also reveals what the White Council long suspected: that the Necromancer was in fact Sauron in hiding.

- within the pages of the Hobbit itself, PJ can show the White Council's attack upon Dol Guldur, which is why Gandalf leaves the quest at the entrance to Mirkwood.

- after the book adaptation is finished, he could delve into Gollum's subsquent search for the Ring, his capture and torture by Sauron, and his capture and questioning by the wood elves of Mirkwood and Aragorn.

- lastly, he could possibly show how little Frodo became orphaned and adopted by uncle Bilbo.

Other than all that, I don't see what more PJ can draw from unless he really starts to either invent stuff or largely extrapolate from what little we are given in the literary sources, such as UT chapters like 'The Hunt for the Ring' and such.

Whatever the case, this definitely bears keeping an eye on as it develops.

Well, The Hobbit is dead, at least as far as PJ's involvement. Get your barfbag ready and read about it here: http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1163993546

This could just mean that New Line is bluffing PJ into settling his lawsuit, and PJ is calling their bluff, but even if it's the case, it still doesn't look promising now. I can't imagine who they'll get to direct it, as that person will have to live up to the fans' e xp ectations AND PJ's standard. It will probably be some new, untried director. Sigh. Whatever great wisdom New Line showed in letting PJ do LOTR as 3 movies instead of 2 is now negated in my book, due to their squabbling over money.

Damn people and their unfailing greed and short-sightedness. This is a deep loss for fandom, and I wholly side with PJ on his stance.

Amen!

It could still all work out, but with corporate egos, lawyers, and accountants involved, the chances of that are slim and none. You'd think New Line would acquiesce to PJ, since all he allegedly wants is an independent audit, which COULD find that New Line owes him NO extra money. That they don't want to budge probably means they KNOW they owe him money. As I've probably mentioned before, James Cameron and Sigourney Weaver had to sue 20th Cen Fox for their share of profits from Aliens, which Fox claimed LOST money. And David Duchovny had to sue Fox TV over his residuals from The X Files.

Agreed. This stinks of New Line being unwilling to admit to any wrongdoing, and bears all the signs of someone whose pride and arrogance is blinding them to common sense. Trying to essentially blackmail PJ into making The Hobbit picture deal by tying it to the resolution of the lawsuit (in other words, dropping it,) is despicable and low.

This whole thing just makes me sick to the core. As much as I disliked a few minor things that PJ did with LOTR, I simply cannot envision anyone else handling this property with the devotion and vision that he lavished upon it. I hope New Line is now aware of how much they have stacked the odds against themselves by making this decision, because any other director being brought into the project now has so much to live-up to, that the comparisons and bad word-of-mouth could very well kill this movie in its infancy.

I still want to see The Hobbit on the big screen, but this has left such a bitter taste in me that somehow my heart is now intent upon disliking whatever product they put forth, and I'm sure millions of other fans will feel similarly. Great to see another instance of the will and hopes of the movie audience being brutally sacrificed on the altar of Hollywood's almighty dollar and colossal stupidity.

New Line and their idiocy can kiss my posterior.

I agree 1000%! I imagine New Line will get deluged with letters over this. I'm going to be writing one myself, rest assured.

Here was a small update posted by theonering.net:Update - Wow! Ringers are peeved! And we hear you! The TORn staff will come up with a plan and report back asap!Never underestimate the power and persuasiveness of a group of determined fans! Let the letter writing begin!

Olorin, if you write up a letter, post it here and we will back you in a petition to help move things along. I understand the political economy of the media and it pains me now more than ever to see this happen.

The fans can change the future... just look at Star Trek. The only reason they continued the original series was because of the diehard fans who wrote to Paramount and pushed for another season. Let's do the same.

Not so much mob mentality... its more fan power. Fan power can change the course of a company like New Line and if they see that enough people will support the movie... they can't ignore some millions of letters.

Since theonering.net is cooking something up, and they are the prime mover and shaker in online Tolkien fandom (at least in my perception), I am going to wait and see what it is. If I still need to write a letter, I will definitely post it here for cannabalization.

In the mean time, here's an interesting tidbit from theonering.net:
The severing of ties between PJ and New Line did not mean Weta was automatically barred from doing The Hobbit, according to Weta chief Richard Taylor. "Peter would not impress that on us," Taylor said, adding that he did not know much about the Hobbit project yet and had not had a chance to talk to Peter.

Taylor said he wasn't aware that negotiations between Peter and New Line to film The Hobbit had gone as far as they had. "I was only aware they had gone as far as they had by reading today's article."


"We're hopeful that we may be invited to work on The Hobbit. There's nothing more that we would like to do in our careers."


Taylor said that Peter would "celebrate" if Weta got that opportunity.

And from Variety:
Inside Move: Trio spar to squire Shire

New Line, MGM, Jackson tussle over 'Hobbit'

By NICOLE LAPORTE, NICOLE LAPORTE, DAVE MCNARY, DAVE MCNARY

Jackson

Ordesky


Who's the boss of "The Hobbit"?

This question has been growing more heated in recent weeks as the principal parties involved in the film -- New Line, MGM and director Peter Jackson -- have been duking it out, each staking their claim as a key player in "The Hobbit" along with a prequel to "The Lord of the Rings."
Behind the jostling is the fact that while New Line owns the rights to produce the pic, MGM owns the distribution rights and Jackson is the creative force behind the franchise's staggering success.


In the most recent flurry of events, Peter Jackson and producing partner Fran Walsh posted a letter Sunday night on the "LOTR" fan site Theonering.net saying that New Line told them last week that it was going to make "The Hobbit" without their services.


The letter also reiterated in detail Jackson's stance on "The Hobbit" -- that he is not willing to have a serious conversation about directing the film until his ongoing lawsuit with New Line over what he considers improper accounting practices over "LOTR" profits is settled.


New Line's given reason for proceeding sans Jackson is that the studio's rights to the pic are about to e xp ire, and seeing as the lawsuit with Jackson isn't moving ahead, well, the message was that New Line is.


All of this has riled MGM, which in recent weeks has been openly touting the fact that the newly revamped studio is serious about making "The Hobbit" -- with Jackson.


An MGM spokesman said that "the matter of Peter Jackson directing 'The Hobbit' films is far from closed."


Though New Line no-commented inquiries about Jackson's statement, the mini-major's move is a loud statement to both MGM and Jackson that the studio is in the driver's seat when it comes to "The Hobbit."


Jackson noted in his letter that New Line exec Mark Ordesky, who shepherded the "Rings" trilogy, e xp lained that New Line is ditching Jackson because it has a "limited time option" on the film rights obtained from Saul Zaentz.


There are already online revolts from fans who can't fathom a "Hobbit" directed by anyone else, and Jackson makes clear in his letter that he's not budging on the issue of the lawsuit or "The Hobbit."If New Line's option is about to e xp ire, will MGM's also? If not, MGM should just stonewall New Line until the option runs out, then proceed ahead with Jackson. Just MHO.

Screw New Line.

I've got nothing constructive to say about them for the foreseeable future.

Olorin1 wrote:Here was a small update posted by theonering.net:Update - Wow! Ringers are peeved! And we hear you! The TORn staff will come up with a plan and report back asap!Never underestimate the power and persuasiveness of a group of determined fans! Let the letter writing begin!

Why don't we make an online petition, using this link for example, it's free,
http://www.petitiononline.com/create_petition.html

and I remember a petition like this was made for the making of the 3rd Conan with Milius and it gathered more than 13000 signatures (http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/ ... 1234&11601)
so we can hope that a topic like The Hobbit should concern more people

It was inevitable that some bull sh*t like this would happen as long as the law suit between Jackson and New Line was still in effect. I know this isn't the end for PJ, contrary to the tone of his letter. I mean, there are just too many die hard PJ interpreted LOTR fans out there for New Line to pull a move like this. If they continue with this attitude, they'll miss out on concluding a multi-billion dollar franchise...get the lawsuit from hell over with, the income from The Hobbit will more than replace the money they owe...

Here's a post from TheOneRing.net about writing letters to the film companies.

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1164129588

The address and stuff is included

A ray or two of hope? Read this article carefully and you will see a couple of very encouraging comments from MGM and Saul Zaentz himself. Looks like New Line's stance and decision is popular with no one but themselves.

Tolkien fans and at least one potential cast member e xp ressed frustration to news that director Peter Jackson would not be making a film based on The Hobbit and a second Lord of the Rings prequel.



Sir Ian McKellen, seen here in 2003, e xp ressed sadness that The Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson would not be taking part in two planned prequels to the trilogy.
(Associated Press)

More than 8,000 fans want Jackson to be reinstated as director for planned films and have signed an online petition on theonering.net, the fan site devoted to the works of The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit author J.R.R. Tolkien.
Theonering.net posted a letter by Jackson and partner Fran Walsh on Sunday saying the two were no longer part of New Line Studio's plans to make the film.
The Oscar-winning director blamed a dispute over profits from the highly successful Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Actor Sir Ian McKellan, who played the role of Gandalf in the trilogy and was widely tabbed to reprise his role in the prequels, also e xp ressed disappointment over the news.
"I'm very sad as I should have relished revisiting Middle Earth with Peter again," the actor wrote on his website. "It's hard to imagine any other director matching his achievement in Tolkien country."
While Jackson said in his letter he is off the Hobbit project, the issue appears far from closed, in part because of the complicated ownership rights to the film.
While New Line Cinema owns the rights to produce the films, Hollywood studio MGM owns the distribution rights.
An MGM spokesman told Variety magazine "the matter of Peter Jackson directing The Hobbit films is far from closed."
A door may also open for Jackson to return if New Line fails to start the project before their rights e xp ire next year, which is the main reason they were said to be looking elsewhere for a director, according to Jackson.
Next year, New Line's rights to the film revert to producer Saul Zaentz's Tolkien Enterprises, the original owner of the film rights to the books. Zaentz told German film magazine Cinema last week that Jackson would be shooting the film.
Zaentz, who produced such films as Amadeus, The English Patient and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, bought the rights to Tolkien's books in 1976 when he made an abortive animated version of the trilogy with director Ralph Bakshi.

And here is Saul Zaentz' comment from that German interview. Bear in mind it was originally written auf deutsch and then translated, so it reads a little odd (but completely intelligibly):

Q: What is with the long anticipated Hobbit-adaption?
A: It will definitely be shot by Peter Jackson. The question is only when. He wants to shoot another movie first. Next year the Hobbit-rights will fall back to my company. I suppose that Peter will wait because he knows that he will make the best deal with us. And he is fed up with the studios: to get his profit share on the rings trilogy he had to sue New Line. With us in contrast he knows that he will be paid fairly and artistically supported without reservation. Zaentz obviously thinks PJ is just waiting New Line out on this in the hopes of their dropping out of the picture. I don't know if PJ is that calculating, and in any case it would be a gamble, since they might forge ahead w/a different director. Personally, I think PJ's motive in going public with his letter was to mobilize his legion of fans into action on his behalf--without ever saying a word specifically to direct them to do so.

Thehobbitfilm.com has addresses and whatnot for e xp ressing your feelings on this.

All that needs to happen is MGM needs to tie New Line up in negotiations until their rights e xp ire. Then Saul Zaentz can license MGM to make the movie with PJ, and New Line can reap the benefits of their arrogance--watching another studio rake in mountains of cash, unshared.

Two cheers for Saul!

Yes, this very much rests in the hands of MGM now. New Line was either bluffing, or seems hell-bent on forging ahead without PJ because it all sounds like sour-grapes from their end now. At least it looks like they weren't lying as to the rights to the Hobbit e xp iring, but it might do them little good in the end to try and rush this thing since the comments from MGM seem to favour PJ's involvement, and they might be bolstered in their stance by Zaentz's support. This is going to be interesting to watch.

As to whether PJ calculated all this, it's hard to say at this point, and we will likely never know, but you know what? I really don't care. If it works out for us, then power to him. What I want to see most now is New Line being booted out of this deal and losing millions in $$$ due to their stupidity.

On the whole, this is just such an odd situation for us to be in. Most of you were probably like me in that you looked at New Line's bigwigs as some sort of far-sighted saints by okaying PJ to do LOTR as 3 movies instead of his planned 2, and the hands-off approach in which they let him make the movie in virtual seclusion about as far from Hollywood as one can get on this world. And then they pull this reeking stunt, the most callous, business-is-business thing you can imagine. They can just conveniently forget the fact that the man made them 3 BILLION dollars at a time when one more e xp ensive flop (they'd tanked with Town and Country just prior to FOTR's release) and Time Warner would have pulled the plug on them.

All of this talk about NewLine and PJ really came at a bad time for me... I just finished 2 assignments about the political economy of the media and now I am working on another essay about a similar topic.

It is extremely frustrating about how the Major's (the 3 dominant film companies) and their subsidiaries have so much control over culture. This also has to deal with the commodification of culture. I think to really sum up this problem, I can quote Micheal Eisner, the owner of Disney. "We have no obligation to art. Our mission is to make profits." So these situations, like the one involving PJ and NewLine are really a struggle over art and profits. I could go on about that as it is really frustrating, but I am glad that something good may actually be coming of this situation...

Thank you Saul!!

Here's an article from The New York Times:

To Web Fans, Peter Jackson Is the One True Director

By SHARON WAXMAN
Published: November 29, 2006
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 28 — When it comes to power games, some in Hollywood are beginning to learn a basic lesson of digital politics: the Internet plays rough.
Peter Jackson, the director of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.





Such is the case with a growing spat between New Line Cinema and Peter Jackson, the A-list director of the “Lord of the Rings” movies and a savvy player when it comes to the power of the Web. Last week Mr. Jackson posted a letter on a fan Web site, theonering.net, e xp laining that he had been dumped by New Line from “The Hobbit,” a movie based on the book by J. R. R. Tolkien, and still in the planning stages.


“This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness and rancor,” Mr. Jackson wrote with his producing partner and wife, Fran Walsh. “We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go and move forward with other projects.”
But to legions of avid Jackson and Tolkien fans, the news was a bombshell that went whizzing through cyberspace.


“This is a big blow to the LOTR community, I feel like there has been a death in the family,” wrote a Web master called Xoanon, referring to the “Lord of the Ring” trilogy by its initials. “Why couldn’t New Line come to an agreement with P J? Is there really a time option on the film rights for New Line? Who will they get to direct?”


Within hours thousands of other fans weighed in on lordotrings.com, onering.com and other sites, worrying about the future of the Tolkien enterprise and asking New Line, which has an option to produce the film until 2009, to back down. Theonering.net was among those calling for a boycott of any Hobbit film not made by Mr. Jackson.


“The fan community as a whole is up in arms about the way Peter Jackson has been treated,” said Chris Pirrotta, a founder of theonering.net site, which has faithfully followed Mr. Jackson for years, even posting his video diary during the making of last year’s “King Kong.” “Fans are very distraught to see someone who’s created something so wonderful being treated so poorly by the studio.”


On the heels of the protest, reporters and entertainment bloggers called the studio to ask about the film’s fate. In what was once an insular club of power brokers and back-stabbers, the voices of outsiders — dancing across the globe at the speed of a modem — have begun to penetrate.


New Line declined to comment on “The Hobbit,” but said in a statement to The Times that the situation was complicated by the lawsuit of Mr. Jackson’s company, Wingnut Films, against the studio over revenues from the “Lord of the Rings,” which New Line produced.


“We are in litigation with Wingnut Films, and have been unsuccessful despite a formal mediation, as well as discussions with Wingnut directly to settle the matter; therefore, we cannot comment at this point,” the studio said this week.


But anxiety continued to reverberate in cyberspace. Ian McKellen, who played Gandalf in the Rings series, wrote on his Web site, mckellen.com: “I’m very sad as I should have relished revisiting middle Earth with Peter again as team-leader. It’s hard to imagine any other director matching his achievement in Tolkien country.”


And Saul Zaentz, the veteran producer who holds the underlying rights, was quoted on yet another Web site, this one in German, saying Mr. Jackson would indeed direct “The Hobbit,” which still has no script, no budget, no cast and no production date.


In an interview from Italy Mr. Zaentz said he was misquoted, but that Mr. Jackson should be the one to direct “The Hobbit.” “We would like to see it done, of course with Peter Jackson,” he said. “He’s a good film director. He’s the right guy. He knows it too. But it’s a hard thing to do, when you feel you didn’t get the money you were supposed to get.”


The contretemps over “The Hobbit,” those involved say, is really about the lawsuit over revenues from the “Lord of the Rings” series, which has taken in a staggering $2.9 billion in box office receipts alone.


In February 2005 Mr. Jackson sued New Line, saying he was owed money from the trilogy. Mr. Jackson has said he sued over profits from “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,” after he was unable to get New Line to submit to an independent audit of its books. The lawsuit, which was unsuccessfully mediated, still has no court date, and so far no audit has taken place. New Line executives have complained that Mr. Jackson has become vastly wealthy from the Tolkien trilogy and is unjustifiably portraying himself as a victim.


In his letter Mr. Jackson said New Line was holding the new movie hostage to his lawsuit, saying that Michael Lynne, the New Line co-president, told Mr. Jackson’s manager, Ken Kamins, “that the way to settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because ‘that’s how these things are done.’ ”


Mr. Jackson added: “Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it’s still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film.”
Neither Mr. Jackson nor the studio would comment publicly on the lawsuit.

The final straw in continuing tensions between the two sides came earlier this month, when Mr. Jackson declined to contribute a video salute to New Line for the celebration of the 40th anniversary of its founding, planned for next year, according to two people familiar with the matter. Days later a New Line executive called Mr. Kamins to say that the studio would be seeking another director for “The Hobbit.”


So while New Line accused Mr. Jackson of trying to negotiate the lawsuit through the Internet, Mr. Jackson’s camp accused the studio of brinksmanship in a fit of pique. It was left to another studio entirely, MGM, which owns the distribution rights to “The Hobbit,” to step in and calm the raging waters — and the Web sites.


“We e xp ect to partner with New Line in financing ‘The Hobbit,’ ” a spokesman for MGM said. “We support Peter Jackson as a filmmaker, and believe that when the dust settles, he’ll be making the movie. We can’t imagine any other result.”

While I find the words from MGM encouraging, I am dismayed by the fact that Zaentz is now claiming he was misquoted. Which is it then? Did he say it or not? I realize translations can be innacurate at times, but I wonder if this wasn't a case of some PR guy for Zaentz cautioning him to adopt a more neutral tone in this mess, and advised him to make some bogus claim that he didn't say what he did.

If Zaentz made his original comment in the hopes of eliciting a positive response from fans, then it worked. If this was about public response, then this couldn't have been taken any better. However, any denial of those words after the fact can only point to a phone call from New Line saying something to the effect of "What the hell do you think you're doing? We own the rights for now, and while we do, we will do with them whatever we want so stop making claims you can't back up!"

Whatever the case, whether he said it or not, my belief is that a man should stand by his words. Backpedalling just makes you look weak and subservient. Though for the sake of PJ I hope Zaentz's original quote was true, for his own integrity's sake I hope that he was indeed misquoted. Whatever the case maybe, he still sounds hopeful that PJ will make this movie, and that can only be a good sign.

I read a day or so after Zaentz's comments that there was a possiblity that they had been made PRIOR to New Line dumping PJ. This was a conjecture based on the facts of the long lead time necessary for publication of a print magazine. It's feasible, since the fact that PJ is suing New Line has been known for some time. Zaentz's apparent backpedalling could have something to do with his comment having been taken somewhat out of context due to a quirk of timing.

Well, at least people are talking about the Hobbit. MGM needs to talk over and they need to get PJ on. That seems to be the consensus these days.

At least its not dead in the water. That is a relief

Well, New Line dumping PJ was a week ago, and Zaentz's comments made only a couple of days ago, though I agree that he may have not had all the facts when he spoke those words. However, something about what he said, specifically about the money issues and PJ being fed up with big studios tells me that Zaentz was already in the know about what was going on. If he didn't already know PJ was about to get handed his walking papers, it couldn't have come as big surprise when it did happen.

As for MGM and them getting PJ on board, I think their power is rather limited in this particular case. Back in the days when we thought New Line was in the bag and all that needed to happen was to get PJ to sign on the dotted line, everyone was imploring MGM to finalize the triumvirate and get this show on the road. When MGM finally responded rather enthusiastically that they wanted PJ aboard, all was good and well until New Line pulled this stunt. However, what we need to bear in mind is that both studios are not exactly equal partners in this deal. As the company with the production rights, New Line is free to pursue whatever path they wish to this movie, and that seems to be what they are going to do. MGM only has the distribution rights, and if New Line's proposal looks good enough to sell tickets, then MGM will have little choice but to make some money rather than just sit on those rights.

Could MGM actually block New Line from releasing this movie simply based on PJ not being aboard? It is possible, but very unlikely. It would take a heck of a lot of backroom secret deals and promises between MGM and PJ to actually secure a move like that, and given PJ's disenchantment with studios at the moment, it's unlikely he will entertain any such notions. What made Zaentz's comments so encouraging was the fact that he confirmed that New Line's rights are close to e xp iring, and that he fully backed PJ to direct.

Somewhere, somehow, one of these three parties (Zaentz, MGM, PJ) needs to exert pressure and influence and stall New Line from progressing with this project. Either that or a miracle happens and New Line comes to its senses... and pigs could fly too!

Edit: I just wanted to add a comment to the last news article that Olorin posted: I can't believe the nerve of New Line, claiming to be upset over the fact that PJ was made "vastly wealthy" already over the profits from LOTR. Huh?!?! Did I miss something? Didn't New Line have to sign those contracts with PJ in the first place? Are they sour the man made all that money because the movies did well? And exactly how much did New Line profit from this cash bonanza? Are they trying to convince us now that PJ is the bad guy and that poor little New Line was ripped off blind by a contract they themselves signed?!?! What a load of crap!!! I can't believe the arrogance of these people! Maybe that's how they are justifying to themselves that they were right in defrauding PJ out of some of those profits since they made so little money from LOTR themselves... yeah, right! New Line was made filthy rich from this also, and now they are playing the victim. They make me sick.

If memory serves, the rights deal on LOTR was New Line got to produce and distribute domestically (US), and MGM got to distribute internationally. I don't know if that same set of parameters was worked out in advance of a Hobbit movie. I don't think so. The articles have been reading like MGM has the rights to distribute, period. If New Line forges ahead and makes the movie without MGM's blessing, they could conceivably be limited to showing it in their screening room. Even if MGM only has rights to half the distribution, if they balk at distributing this, it would cost New Line half its profits, at no cost to MGM (in terms of out-of-pocket e xp ense, not potential profits).

There are conflicting reports on when New Line's rights e xp ire. One article said 2007, but another said 2009. 2009 seems more likely to me. If it were 2007, NL and MGM would both have been going bonkers by now. There's also a question of what the deadline means. Does it mean the movie must be released by then, or just that production must be begun? I'm guessing the latter. On the other hand, NL could have some street artist do a few concept sketches to say that production had begun, so it must be more complicated than that. I'm shuddering at the memory of the dreck Warner rushed out under the title "Queen of the Damned" just to hang onto the Anne Rice vampire franchise before their rights e xp ired.

I also noted that bit about how much money PJ had made off it. New Line is trying to make PJ look greedy and unreasonable. I don't think people will fall for that. As far as I'm concerned, PJ earned every penny of that. I suspect a lot of people will feel the same way.

I think there may be an element of trying to whittle PJ down to size or keep him in line. In the wake of LOTR's and Kong's successes, PJ went from being an unknown to being a Spielberg-sized power player. NL probably thinks that if they don't get some control over him now, they'll never be able to.

In any case, with enough people leaning on New Line, surely they will see the light.

Theonering.net has a brief spot confirming that Saul Zaentz' interview was done well prior to PJ's bombshell:
Saul Zaentz Interview Revelations
12/02/06, 10:30 pm EST - Xoanon
Tinuvielas writes: I just talked to editor Jochen Schuetze from the German magazine "Cinema" about the Saul Zaentz-interview (in the current issue) and about "The Hobbit". According to him, the interview was given around October 15th when Zaentz was in Berlin.

Xoanon here, this interview was done well over a month before we released Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh's letter, setting off a firestorm of controversy online and in Hollywood. My hope is to get Mr. Zaentz to comment now regarding this, in lieu of these new revelations!

Just figures.

From MyMovies.net:

Elijah backs Jackson in "Hobbit" dispute
29 November 2006


Sir Ian McKellen has already voiced his dismay at New Line Cinema‘s decision to drop director Peter Jackson from their movie of "The Hobbit" and its apparent sequel as, according to Jackson, New Line have refused to consider him for the project as they are currently embroiled in a legal battle over DVD royalities. And this week Middle Earth hero Elijah Wood, Frodo Baggins in Jackson‘s "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy, told us in London of his concern over the situation.

"If [Peter] ultimately doesn‘t come back because of what New Line has done I think it would be a great tragedy. I think it‘s ultimately quite foolish for New Line to move forward assuming they can create an equally wonderful film without Peter…and I think for that for fans that‘s tragic," Elijah told us, adding "For a long time I never kind of imagined that these movies would ever be made, so if they do get made I think they should be made by Peter."

However the star doesn‘t think we‘ve heard the last of this, saying "I don‘t think it‘s ultimately over though, I think the arguments still up in the air. There‘s talk that New Line will ultimately lose the rights to ["The Hobbit"] and that the rights will fall to the Saul Zaentz company, which is what Saul Zaentz is now saying, so who knows? I think it remains to be seen ultimately what will happen, but it makes me nervous."

And here are further comments from Empire. Note that he says he can't imagine anyone else from LOTR wanting to be involved if PJ isn't directing. PJ's minions are ramping up the heat on New Line!

Exclusive: Elijah Wood Talks The Hobbit
Frodo on the Rings prequels
When New Line announced several weeks ago that they planned to start work on The Hobbit, a good many Middle Earth enthusiasts were elated. Then New Line informed Jackson that, due to a legal dispute over Lord of the Rings earnings, his services would not be required for that project or a hitherto unknown 'second prequel'. Cue: one disappointed director, and the outrage of thousands of fans.Keen to find out how those close to the Lord Of The Rings camp feel about the whole mess, Empire sat down with Frodo himself, Elijah Wood, to get his thoughts on the matter. "I feel exactly the same way Peter does.""I think it's a total shame, primarily for Peter and his team – WETA, and the thousands of people that lent their artistic creativity for ten years to this world of Middle Earth -- to imagine that somebody else would be given that opportunity, and that it essentially wouldn't be made by the same team"As someone who wouldn't be needed for at least the first of what is increasing looking like two precursor films, Wood has more room to comment than some of the LOTR cast, and spoke candidly. "I can't imagine any of the original actors would want to join it… how can you imagine a prequel that didn't look the same, and didn't have the same continuity after all that work?"But, like many up to speed on the situation, he's not convinced that the fat Hobbit lady has sung. "At the moment it sounds so definitive, and Peter has said "That's the end of the journey" in a very dramatic way, as Peter is wont to do - but absolute power to him, because I would be equally disappointed if I were him. But I think it remains to be seen, and apparently New Line may lose the rights eventually. If that happens, it would eventually - I think - fall back into Peter's hands. It's just sad that it's ultimately a business decision, and not at all considering the fans."

And here's this from theonering.net:

Peter Jackson appears in LA over the Weekend!
12/04/06, 1:37 pm EST - Celeborn
A few Ringers spotted Peter Jackson in Los Angeles over the weekend. Could Peter be in town to talk more "Hobbit" with the powers-that-be at the studios? Only time will tell!

Royd Tolkien has weighed in on the Hobbit controversy and is a HUGE supporter of PJ. Royd is JRR's great grandson, and grandson of Christopher Tolkien. He also had a bit part in ROTK, as a Gondorian soldier handing out spears at the beginning of the clash with the orcs in Osgiliath. I'm not sure what sort of name Royd is; to me, it sounds painfully like a nickname for "hemorrhoid." Anyway, here are his comments, as posted on theonering.net:
Royd Tolkien Weighs in on THE HOBBIT!
Xoanon @ 10:23 am EST
I've had a bunch of people asking my opinion on the recent New Line / Peter Jackson / Hobbit news. These are my thoughts...

Before Peter made Lord Of The Rings all I knew of his work was that I really enjoyed his films. That all changed a few years ago. He's not only a filmmaker, he's someone that I now trust and respect.

Before the films were made I held massive reservations and fears that JRRT and LOTR would be used as merely a tool for producing revenue and would result ultimately in a substandard film. But it's different now, and it's different because of Peter.

3 weeks ago those feelings returned. Without him, The Hobbit will become what I had earlier feared LOTR was to become.

To find a new director after the time and dedication Peter and all his people put in would not just be wrong, it would also be a bad decision.
Now I know and understand that some purists would disagree with me, and whilst I again understand and agree with their right to have an opinion, just imagine how bad it could have been without Peter at the helm. Peter didn't just direct a film, he brought together a highly impressive team.
Think about the different elements of his team; first there was the thoughtfulness and professionalism of Richard Taylor and everyone at Weta who realised the complex detail needed to make it believable; secondly the way Howard Shore's beautiful music compliments and binds the film. In addition to this there is the wonderfully detailed concepts of Alan Lee and John Howe, both of whose insights helped craft the feel of the film. The fabulous costumes of Ngila Dickson, the photography and vision of Andrew Lesnie, and New Zealand, a country that lends itself perfectly to Middle Earth with its breathtaking and varied landscapes. All of these elements and many more were brought together by Peter.
How could a different director do what Peter has done? How would they find a similar team of people who have the knowledge, passion and understanding of a world they helped create?

Surely that doesn't make any sense when Peter already holds the key.
I do understand and agree with Peter's position, although I only know on the surface what must be a very difficult and frustrating decision for him.
I know it's not simply a matter of saying yes. There's a mountain of issues that lie between New Line and Peter, but there must be some way to resolve this.

I imagine there's been an awful lot of letters and conversations between both camps, heels have been dug in and hair pulled out. If only there was some way to sort out the stalemate between them and find that common ground and resolution which is needed to do justice to such an important book.

Whilst I don't know the inner relationship between New Line and Peter, what i do know is that they backed him, all those years ago, to produce LOTR. For that part and many more they played, I'm forever grateful.
When I saw the end result on screen, knowing that everyone had played a part in putting it there, and were all united in putting it there, it made me smile. I'm sorry but has everyone forgot those simple smiles? Isn't that what making films is all about?

If Peter hadn't made LOTR with the respect he showed to my Great Grandfather, I'd not have felt compelled to voice my opinion. [/indent]